Posted on 02/01/2006 11:59:50 AM PST by shining_city
How and since when did Jack Abramoff gain the title "REPUBLICAN Lobbyist"?
From what i've seen he's pandered to both sides about evenly.
Tell me about it. Living in this town, I an constantly getting into it with the RATS. Sadly I've had to part ways with some friends cause of their attitudes, I joke around about a lot but when it comes to things like wearing tee shirts with President Bush as Hitler on the front I don't see their humor, we are in a time of war and the RATS just don't get it
You're right. I naively thought Sullivan was different but apparently not. I haven't been to his website in a couple of years now. A shame.
Kaine is the closest thing they have to a "rising star". What a sad state that party is in.
Big choice between a kook and a crook.
I was a bit early in my prediction, but once the DLC Democrats (with Hillary's blessing) gang up on Dean and fire him, the Hard Left will walk.
I posted something that Byron York had found on KOS and put up on National Review Online's The Corner site. It prompted a lot of posts speculating about the future of the dims, as we know them, and whether or not they will remain intact as a party (I'm speculating they won't others think it will go otherwise). There's also discussion of the possible impact on 2006 elections.
The comment from KOS itself is amazing. They truly are in melt down mode.
I was told that Rush mentioned the original KOS post, York's repost and the FR rerepost. Woohoo!
warning - though "cleaned up" it's still obvious what foul language was meant by the original poster on KOS
warning 2 - some posts may cause explosive spewing of anything you might be drinking when you read them - any damage to your computer is your own problem
Interesting. Hillary, Colmes and Ron Reagan certainly have no problem teaching children about sex and particularly encouraging them to that sodomy is a source of "pride."
That's a great essay, Publius -- no need to apologize for the link. I think the points about the 2004 election and how the Dems sealed their fate when they chose to not replicate JFK by going to the right on terrorism are pretty good.
I've always perceived Andrew Sullivan as a mole. He attempted to proliferate and popularize the idea among Republicans that homosexexual "marriage" and homosexuality were good things. Note that he made a very good income out of posing as a needy man with AIDS among conservatives and after he'd received quite a good sum, was exposed as simultaneously soliciting elsewhere for homosexual sexual relationships without precautions.
And, his petulent dissatisfaction with President Bush and the GOP afterward was the finale I do believe worked best to fulfill his performance: to the effect, 'the GOP has abandoned me because they won't support "gay marriage"' and quite a bit of extensive theatrics afterward.
It's a process that first suckers people in, then uses them, then attempts to steal them away by commisserating with them about unhappinesses. His purpose seems to have been to create disharmony and objection and to feel sorry for him was to be suckered in, sorry to say.
= Obsessive compulsives.
No, he is NOT a conservative Catholic. NO more than John Kerry is. Or Ted Kennedy. Or any "priest" who is violating his vows by sexual relationships, etc.
People lay claim to being "Catholic" even so far as if their parents were, if they went to Catholic school or even if they once sat in a pew.
Andrew Sullivan makes choices in opposition to the Church. He is one of those people who gets mileage out of "being Catholic" but who does not repent of wrong deeds nor renew his life.
Receiving Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin is condemning of one's soul. Who can say if Sullivan has confessed and repented, but I don't see from his own experiences that he's ever modified his behavior. That tells me there is no repentance. The conclusion is obvious, then.
A lesbian I once knew said, "God gives everyone a monster to fight, I just wish he hadn't given me this one."
I pray for Sullivan.
I think that the split is deeper than that, but I'm not sure what side Pelosi is on. Biden made statements on the Sunday talk shows about Reid's own ties to Abramoff being a problem, as well as his ties to gambling interests. With Reid in charge in the Senate, the Democrats can't really talk about the Republican "culture of corruption". It would be a joke.
Pelosi, on the other hand is as far left as Dean, and will say anything she wants, whether there is any truth to it or not.
bump
No Christian of the real kind would ever so allege, that "God had given (them) homosexuality." That very statement reveals a person to not know Christ.
I pray for all homosexuals, including Sullivan. I pray for anyone who claims the Light to be darkness and the darkness to be light, and most homosexuals do that, in my experience.
I do not accept any one's random presentation that they are Catholic. We as Christians are asked to "test the spirits" and to evaluate who is who and what is what based upon how Christ instructs us to do so.
About homosexuality, if a person continues to declare themself as affiliated with homosexuality -- in effect, to be a "homosexualagendist" by doing so -- they are defying and denouncing what God commands. If a person recognizes a sin, even if they confess the sin and seek forgiveness, but do not repent of the sin, they are not bearing the "fruit" or presence of a renewed person in Christ. Because, true repentence based upon the strength and presence of Christ "casts out" the sin, there is repentence, forgiveness is sought, and the "new man" exists and the sin is no longer not attractive but usually is repugnant if there is true repentance.
A person continuing to declare both Christian and homosexual is engaging in abuse of the first and promotion of the second. As key example here, Andrew Sullivan not only does not denouce homosexuality but he promotes it and shares his enthusiasm and support for and about it; he may remember what some Catholics were like or who he thinks Catholics are culturally, but as to his own state of person, he is identifying himself as not a Catholic -- to the contrary, he identifies with and continues the sin, while denouncing repentance for the sin.
Those who continue to declare homosexuality do likewise and they choce the sin over Christ. Christianity and relationship with Christ and with His Church is not subject to cultural memes and cultural, socio-acceptabilities that vary based upon what is acceptable and admirable on a human level, but upon absolute principles and relationship with both Christ and His Church.
Matthew 7 ( 21-29 ) - these are the words of Jesus Christ:
15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves.
16 By their fruits you will know them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
17 Just so, every good tree bears good fruit, and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 So by their fruits you will know them.
21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.
22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?'
23 Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'
24 "Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.
25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.
26 And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.
27 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined."
28 When Jesus finished these words, the crowds were astonished at his teaching,
29 for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes.
Why does the MSM keep referring to Abramoff as a "Republican lobbyist". He was a lobbyist. Money went to both parties.
Yeah, many of us have noticed that. It's an outright blatant lie by the MSM, by the way, given that Abramoff is not a "Republican lobbyist" but a "lobbyist". I don't even know what a "Republican lobbyist" means or is. I don't think the MSM does, either.
They have this way of picking up on nonsensical and even outright false terms and expressions and proliferating them, unless and until challenged. By exposing the funds given to Democrats by Abramoff, it'll also expose their pets, the MSM, for misleading and lying, AHgain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.